What you are about to read may shock, dismay and outrage. It may undermine fundamental beliefs about government, society and democracy. Your mind may even recoil in sheer disbelief. But rest assured, the facts are well documented and can be easily verified.
These events have actually happened, are happening and will continue to happen until enough people are aware enough and outraged enough to stop them. This is the story of fluoride: a story of greed, duplicity, naivety, money and power.
Fluoridation, the process whereby millions of people are 'medicated' whether they like it or not, has an interesting history. The main part of the story begins where the second world war ends. Straight after the cessation of hostilities the US government sent, along with an entourage, the biochemist Charles E Perkins, to take over the giant IG Farben works in Germany. This was a chemical conglomerate without which Hitler would not have been able to wage war.
I G Farben had links with the American aluminium producers, Alcoa, which were maintained even during the war. Both concerns produced prodigious amounts of fluoride as a waste product. A story sneered at by scientists on both sides of the fluoridation debate but nevertheless refuses to die, has it that during the war, a scheme was initiated by German scientists and later adopted by the German General Staff to add sodium fluoride to the drinking water in occupied countries.
It had allegedly been discovered by German scientists that repeated doses of this chemical slightly damaged the hippocampus, an area of the human brain. It appeared that people so affected displayed less aggression and independence of action, leading to a docile, easily controllable population. If this were true, Charles Perkins would no doubt have learnt of this scheme. This episode is described by Dr Hans Moolenburgh in his book Fluoride: The Freedom Flight.
(1) In this same book, Moolenburgh quotes an informant who claimed that the Russians were fluoridating the drinking water of German POWs because "it kept the Germans calm." Not surprised by this claim, Dr Moolenburgh pointed out that: "25% of major tranquilisers are connected with fluoride." Also cited by Dr Moolenburgh, it is perhaps for this same reason that the Indonesians fluoridate the drinking water of the unruly Irian Jayans in spite of the fact that no other part of Indonesia is fluoridated and the inhabitants of Irian Jaya have always had perfect teeth!
But we digress. Back to the beginning where the story takes a decidedly sinister turn. Enter one Oscar Ewing who was appointed Director of Social Security in charge of the US Public Health Service followed quickly by his committing the PHS to the promotion of fluoridation. By this time he was a member of President Truman's cabinet. According to author Eustace Mullins, in a book published by the US National Council for Medical Research: "Ewing and his minions were also aware of Soviet studies showing that fluorides were extremely important in introducing a docile, sheep-like obedience in the general population."
(2) It had also been well known for years that cattle breeders valued the efficacy of large doses of fluorides when dealing with the more intractable of their bulls. (Consumed by the bulls that is, not by the cattlemen!) Formerly, Ewing had been the legal counsel to Alcoa. This thickening of the plot is best appreciated when it is noted that along with the production of fertilizers, the aluminium industry is a major bi-producer of fluoride, essentially a toxic waste. Even then, when the green movement was only the gleam in the eyes of isolated fanatics, the deadliness of this waste was well known.
As far back as the 1850s, it was recognised that when iron and copper factories were spewing fluoride into the air, plants and animals, as well as people were being poisoned. The major difficulties inherent in its disposal had also been long known: only so much could be converted into rat poison and pesticide. The remainder was accumulating in the environment (as it does in the human body). It does not biodegrade. Industry was worried - not about people or the environment, but about possible law suits and billions lost in the cost of pollution-control. It was in the 1930s that the evil genie first stirred in response to the desperate dilemma of the industrialists.
A tenuous connection was made between water supplies containing traces of fluoride and lower rates of tooth decay. See, fluoride was actually good for you. The genie's bottle was rubbed even more vigorously in what must have been an ecstasy of triumph. In a Pittsburgh industrial research lab, Alcoa-sponsored biochemist, Gerald J Cox fluoridated some rats then noted that they had good teeth. Voila! - the proof conclusive: fluoride promotes healthy teeth.
(3) In 1939, Cox went on to make the first public proposal that the US should 'altruistically' fluoridate its water supply. Cox, bear in mind, was still working for a company still squirming beneath the Damocle's sword of fluoride damage claims. His proposal, while aiming to administer only minute doses of fluoride to each individual, would mean hundreds of thousands of tons of fluoride added to the water supply annually. With Cox as front-man, the aluminium smelting industry was quietly manoeuvering in the background.
The dam walls containing the deadly fluoride were beginning to crack as an insidious stream of propaganda swept up more and more adherents. A US chemical industry publication, Chemical Week, succinctly encapsulated the spirit of corporate victory: "They are riding a trend urged upon them by the US Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, various state and local health bodies, and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation."
In 1945, shortly after the war and Charles E Perkins' visit to Germany and his assumed acquaintance with IG Farben's preoccupation with fluoride, theory transformed into reality with the Grand Rapids Study which saw the establishment of 'experimental' fluoridation plants in selected areas of the US, one of which was the City of Grand Rapids. The experiment was to last ten years but was cut short after five when the fluoridated areas were showing no significant improvement in dental decay as measured against a non-fluoridated city (the control in the experiment). Further comparison was dispensed with when the control city was hastily fluoridated as well.
The power of myth, shonky science and delusion had driven an intellectual band-wagon roughshod over genuine empiricism and cold, hard reasoning. Fluoridation took the world by storm, that is, that part of the world where American influence is most acute, where indeed America is seen as a shining slice of heaven from whence all things great and good flow: a modern cargo cult. In fact, belying the seeming popularity of fluoridation is the paltry 4% of the world that has actually embraced this 'godsend'.
(4) The 96% not fluoridated includes most of Europe. Denmark, for example, banned fluoridation when, after extensive consultation, its National Agency for Environmental Protection concluded that not enough was known about the long term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain segments of its population: people with impaired kidney function, for instance.
Fluoridation was rejected in Sweden which similarly baulked at leaping into the unknown. After evidence had been presented that fluoridation caused neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals, it was banned in Holland. Chile, a country perhaps lacking the scientific sophistication of the West, was an early entrant in the rush to fluoridation. It was however abolished there when, in 1976, a professor Albert Schatz produced evidence of higher
infant mortality rates in the fluoridated areas.
(5) Even in Australia, Land of the Gullible, it has long been known that fluoride consumption can cause a condition called dental fluorosis: an unsightly mottling of the teeth, but predictably this is dismissed as an insignificant cosmetic problem. This factor is not taken so lightly in Poland however where researchers, using a new computerised x-ray procedure, have shown that bone structure disturbances have also been found in boys suffering supposedly innocuous fluorosis. In New Zealand, fluoridation was adopted with gusto. One of its most ardent advocates was John Colquhoun, a dentist, practising for many years and eventually becoming Principal Dental Officer before being elected to a local government in Auckland.
(6) Pouring scorn on opponents of fluoridation, it was John Colquhoun who persuaded the Mayor and a majority of fellow councillors to accept fluouridation of most of Auckland's water supply. Several years later Colquhoun consolidated his pro-fluoridation position by publishing a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal in which he trumpeted the success of fluoridation by claiming that the incidence of tooth decay, particularly in low income areas, had declined dramatically since the advent of fluoridation. This claim was accepted by professional colleagues and found its way into the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association. So convincing was his advocacy of fluoridation that heavy weight bureaucrats based in the capital city of Wellington approached Colquhoun with the proposition of making fluoridation the subject of a world study tour beginning in 1980. This with a view to Colquhoun becoming the public servants' expert, well-armed enough to lead a campaign designed to break down resistance in the areas that had not yet been fluoridated.
However, before this tour had begun, the worm of doubt had already begun to gnaw, fed by evidence becoming available that the incidence of childhood tooth decay was also declining in areas of New Zealand not fluoridated. Optimism was adjusted accordingly. It was accepted that the wildly wishful 50 to 60 per cent improvement in dental health was not eventuating. Even so, a "significant difference" was anticipated (or by now, more accurately, hoped for).
Undaunted, Colquhoun proceeded with his world tour and on his return to New Zealand, accepted an appointment as chairman of a national Fluoridation Promotion Committee. Public 'education' would be his job description. What Colquhoun didn't know however was that, during his absence from New Zealand, the body of evidence was growing against the benefits of fluoridation. It was becoming clear that the lessening of tooth decay was as great in non-fluoridated areas of Greater Auckland if not better. When Colquhoun demanded the statistics pertaining to the rest of New Zealand they were sent with a warning against publication. Hardly surprising: they showed that in most health districts the dental health of 12 to 13 year old children living in non fluoridated areas was superior to that of their counterparts in fluoridated areas. These results were eventually published.
In a paper entitled: Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation, (1997 University of Chicago Press) Colquhoun explained his earlier inability to believe the writing on the wall: " I now realise that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence." This new evidence continued to roll in from other parts of the world. Large scale surveys took place in the US. In a study of 26,000 school children in Tucson, Arizona, the result was chilling: "When we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's neighbourhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth", wrote Professor Steelink, the
instigator of the study.
Colquhoun, being a ethical man, was able to admit that he had been wrong. In his conversion he was to display the same dynamic energy opposing fluoridation as he had in being a proponent. His further studies, based on sound scientific principles, showed that there was a strong correlation between fluoridation and the increased incidence of hip fractures. He also became convinced of a link between fluoridation and a form of bone cancer. His has not been a lone voice in these startling and frightening revelations. Here, at the risk of fuelling increased fear, is but the briefest sampling of many such revelations. In corroboration of Colquhoun's claim regarding fluoride and bone cancer, JK Mauer, et al in "Two-Year Cacinogenicity Study of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 82 also found that fluoride promotes bone cancer.
Bearing in mind that collagen is the glue that literally holds the body together, it may be highly disturbing to be told that AK Susheela and Mohan Jha in "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition," IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Volume 9, found that fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
Here in Australia, although a tiny but dedicated resistance movement is afoot, it's still pretty much a case of "she'll be right mate." A mentality hypnotised by the belief that, if it's from America it must be good, still prevails. Evidently, we feel the same about China. Witness the fact that we are buying fluoride from China to add to Melbourne's water supply at the rate of $500 per tonne.
(7) Think about that: we are paying the Chinese (who do not fluoridate their own water supplies) for the pleasure of disposing of their toxic waste by drinking it! Is that the distant sound of laughter all the way to the bank? And we are a country obsessed about what the rest of the world thinks of us! But don't despair; avoiding fluoride is difficult but not impossible. Read the fine print on tooth paste packets. Fluoride in toothpaste can be absorbed through the membranes of the mouth (children, not being as orally adept as adults, ingest it directly). And this is on top of what our masters consider to be our recommended daily requirement. Also bear in mind that any type of processed food containing water, be it fruit juice or canned peas, also contains fluoride. Boiling doesn't remove fluoride; it fortifies it. But don't despair; distilled water is fluoride free. A water filter will successfully remove fluoride from drinking water – a reverse osmosis style is said to be the best.
REFERENCES
1) Cited in article entitled "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and Government", extracted from the World Wide Web. Fluoride: The Freedom Flight by Dr Hans Moolenburgh, 1987 is no longer in print.
2) "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and Government", originally posted on WWW 28/7/96. Sender: Steve Windgate.
3) "Fluoride: Industry's Toxic Coup", Earth Island Journal V13 No2 by Joel Griffiths, medical writer and investigative reporter with New York Times Magazine.
4) Press Release issued 21/10/96 by Glen Walker, chairperson of Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia
5) "Fluoride - The Modern Day DDT" extracted from www.intekom.com/tm_info/fluor2.htm
6) Joel Griffiths, op. cit.
7) Glen Walker, op. cit.
8) Glen Walker of Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment